New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 29 July 2014
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-901-9391
OsakaInterlink Co., Ltd.

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

PrevailedThank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the requirements specified in the Applicant
Guidebook. Your application prevailed in Community Priority Evaluation.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

15 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned443415

Achievable
444416

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
4/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application
met the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of theApplicant Guidebook, as the community is clearly delineated, organized and pre-existing. The application
received the maximum score of 2 points under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear straightforward
membership definition, and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.
The community defined in the application (“Osaka”) is:	  Page	  1	  Members of the community are defined as those who are within the Osaka geographical area as wellas those who self identify as having a tie to Osaka, or the culture of Osaka. Major participants ofthe community include, but are not limited to the following: 	 • Legal entities 	 • Citizens 	 • Governments and public sectors 	 
• Entities, including natural persons who have a legitimate purpose in addressing the community.
This community definition shows a clear and straightforward membership. The community is clearly defined
because membership is dependent on having a clear connection to a defined geographic area.
In addition, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition among its members.
This is because of the clear association with the Osaka geographical area, as according to the applicant, “theOsaka Community is largely defined by its prefectural borders.”
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both the conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community, and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application has at least one entity mainly dedicated to the community,
which is the Osaka Prefectural government. According to the letter of support from the Osaka PrefecturalGovernment:
As the Governor of Osaka Prefecture, I confirm that I have the authority of the government to bewriting to you on this matter. As the local municipality, the government has the authority to decideconditions to use .osaka as a trustworthy domain.
The community as defined in the application has documented evidence of community activities. This isconfirmed by detailed information on the website of the Osaka Prefectural government. These activities
include carrying out promotional activities to attract overseas corporations and tourists to the Osaka region.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both the conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was active prior to September 2007. According to theapplication:
The Osaka community has been in existence for thousands of years, and is known as Japan’s oldestcapital. Osaka has been an economic and cultural center of the Japan for over a long span of time,
though formally, the geographic area that defines the community, Osaka Prefecture, was formallyestablished in 1868.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application
fulfills the requirements for pre-existence.	  

Page	  2	  1-B Extension
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application
met the criterion for Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of theApplicant Guidebook, as the application demonstrates considerable size and longevity for the community.
The application received a maximum score of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. The community for .Osaka as defined in
the application is large in terms of the number of members. According to the applicant, “the OsakaPrefecture is currently the 3rd most populous area in Japan with a community of over 8.8 million people.”
In addition, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition among its members.
This is because of the clear association with the Osaka geographical area. According to the applicant, “theOsaka Community is largely defined by its prefectural borders.”
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both the conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application demonstrates longevity. The pursuits of the .Osaka community
are of a lasting, non-transient nature. According to the application materials:
The Osaka community has been in existence for thousands of years, and is known as Japan’s oldestcapital. Osaka has been an economic and cultural center of the Japan for over a long span of time,
though formally, the geographic area that defines the community, Osaka Prefecture, was formallyestablished in 1868. Osaka’s culture is grounded in its long history of being a center for traditional
performing arts known as the ʺkamigata culture”. The community enjoys festivals and other customs
that have been passed on from generation to generation.
In addition, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition among its members
This is because of the clear association with the Osaka geographical area. According to the applicant, “theOsaka Community is largely defined by its prefectural borders.”
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both the conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.

Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
4/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
3/3 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Nexus as
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook. The string
matches the name of the community. The application received a maximum score of 3 points under criterion
2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community. To receive a partial score for Nexus, theapplied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” means that the applied-for string closely describes	  Page	  3	  the community or the community members without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.
The applied-for string (.Osaka) matches the name of the community. The string matches the name of thegeographical and political area around which the community is based. According to the application
documentation:
The string, “.osaka”, directly represents the Osaka community, and has been fully approved by theOsaka Prefectural Government as the proper representation of the Osaka community on theInternet.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for string matches the name of thecommunity as defined in the application. It therefore meets the requirements for nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Uniquenessas specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as thestring has no other significant meaning beyond identifying the community described in the application. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application. The string as defined in the application demonstrates
uniqueness, as the string does not have any other meaning beyond identifying the city and prefecture on
which the community is based. The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for
string satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for uniqueness.

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as eligibility
is restricted to community members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement byspecifying that registrants must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
Osaka municipalities and local governments; public and private institutions in Osaka; organizations,companies and other businesses in Osaka; residents of Osaka; other community members who havea bona fide purpose for registering and using the domain. Registrants who purchase “.osaka” names
will be required to certify that meet one of the categories above. (Comprehensive details areprovided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation).
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook
as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants	  Page	  4	  must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application
demonstrates adherence to this requirement by outlining the types of names that may be registered within the.Osaka top-level domain, while the name selection rules are consistent with the purpose of the gTLD.
(Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The CommunityPriority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill the requirements
for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content andUse as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as therules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by outlining prohibitions on certain
types of content. Additionally, the applicant “will implement an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) as well as
include an Abuse Point of Contact on its website as a means to provide a method for users to submit
complaints of abuse...” (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation).
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement
0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion forEnforcement as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the application provided specific enforcement measures but did not include appropriate appeal
mechanisms. The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting acoherent set as the registry will monitor domain registrations for content and has the right to cancel orsuspend domain names that are in breach of its policies. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20eof the applicant documentation). However, the application did not outline an appeals process. TheCommunity Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies only one of the two conditions
to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement.

Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
4/4 Point(s)4-A Support
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application fully met the criterion for Support
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook based on
documented support from the recognized community institution to represent the community. The
application received a maximum score of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means the institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community. Toreceive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group withrelevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applicant has documented support from the	  Page	  5	  recognized community institution that represents the community. The Osaka Prefectural government hasprovided its written endorsement to the applicant for the provision of registry services under the .OsakagTLD. The government also provided support for the applicant in the Initial Evaluation (Geographic NamesEvaluation) phase. The Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant fully satisfies therequirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Opposition
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplication did not receive any relevant opposition. The application received the maximum score of 2 points
under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition ofrelevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, atmost, one group of non-negligible size.
The application did not receive any letters of opposition. The Community Priority Evaluation Paneldetermined that the applicant satisfied the requirements for Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebook
and the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.	  

Page	  6